Female nature -> Men are romantics masquerading as pragmatists, and women are pragmatists masqueradi

This was originally meant to be a response to the topic "Men are romantics masquerading as pragmatists, and women are pragmatists masquerading as romantics", but as I started writing more and more I figured it's best to make a separate topic instead as an answer. There's a lot of research in here, read as much as you want.

I don't think "men are romantics masquerading as pragmatists, and women are pragmatists masquerading as romantics". I think you fail to understand female nature, and male nature, I think you fail to understand human nature.

Men want 3 things and a woman wants 1 thing:
- A man wants purity, youth and beauty.
- A woman wants the strongest man's genes.

For a man it's important:
- That she didn't had many previous partners, even if in a relationship, because that mean will be bad quality in present relationships.
- That she is young, because that means more chance for babies and healthy babies.
- That she is beautiful because that means good genes to pass to your children.

For a woman it's important:
- That he has the best genes possible so that she passes those genes to her children.

This is why women love muscular guys, hot men and such. More than they would like to admit and more than society tells you.

Ok, women ideally want 2 things:
- An alpha male because a woman wants the strongest man's genes.
- A beta male because a woman wants a good provider to take care of herself and her kids.

Ideally, women want an alpha male who would stay. To be the best source of genes possible & the father of the children.

This is why cheating is so rampart in America. It's not that women don't want long-term relationships, in fact they want long-term relationships more than me. It's that women want long-term relationships with those alpha-chads, and if they can't get one, they will settle for a provider while hoping to sleep with an alpha on the side to get those good genes.

It's female nature, like it or note. And why they can't get into a relationship with those alpha-chads? because they will know that they sleep around, but they hope of "scoring" a relationship with that chad. You look at an average high-school American movie where a girl is way in love with a chad/jock who doesn't really care about them as in is not that desperate (because he already got plenty of options) but there's a nerd who quite deeply and exclusively loves her. And at the end of the movie, she got with the nerd.

What does men see in this? aww, she finally got with the nerd. What does women see in this? aww, she loved that chad/jack so much but he just wasn't ready for a relationship so she settled with the nerd. This is the female nature and no amount of propaganda is going to change that.

This is how women are biologically inclined to do, why? because a woman wants the strongest man's genes. Netflix movies where there is a woman in a relationship or about to get married but still "lusts" about her ex what she had wild sex with all the time is way more realistic than the movie where the nerd gets the girl type. In fact, a realistic high-school movie would be a girl being in a relationship with a nerd then leaving him for a chad. Rather than the other way around.

And in fact, there's data to support this:
- On Tinder. 80% of women swipe right on the top 20% of men. (good genes guys)
- In a study, women labeled 20% of men as "attractive", did I say attractive, sorry I meant "above average". Women label 20% of men as above average and 80% of men as "below average". That's not how an average works. (but you can see it, good genes indication)

WHY? BECAUSE MASCULINITY IS IMPORTANT.

In USA, 33% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
So close to 33% of boys have a female influence only at home.
And the majority of boys have a predominantly female influence at school.
Maybe toxic masculinity isn't the problem, maybe the lack of masculinity is.

The father's role is important, and women subconsciously know this.

Simply put, single moms can't raise children, they need that masculine energy, the children need that masculine energy.



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4qj-iRD8Y24
TL;DR - children raised by single fathers are just as likely to commit crimes as children raised by both parents, children raised by single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children raised either by both parents or single fathers, so maybe, the father's role is really important in educating children.

Of course, this is one of those "offensive" facts that nobody likes but is true.

Do you remember shooters like Elliot Rodgers or Jack Davison? yep, fatherless home. And this makes a lot of sense. Have you ever noticed how the vast majority of: serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general are way more feminine than masculine? because if they were masculine they would be happy in life and wouldn't do those thing. But because they were raised by a single mom "who knows what is best for them" they end up being feminine and miserable, and rejected by women and society. And well, the rest is history. In addition to that, they are told by these single moms that "women are angels", that non-sense like: women just want a nice guy, women don't like the jocks and the aholes, women aren't shallow they don't really look at a man's appearance that much, women got so much heart and they're so nice and kind to everyone, a woman's sexual past is none of your concern and it has nothing to do with her future relationships, women will stay with you no matter what. No, women want a strong man with confidence and all the best genes. That's what they go for, that's what they are attracted to, that's what they actively desire to sleep with. A man who is hot, may look you into the eye, have a confident discussion with you, may have plenty of women already, and may not even care about you. Because if he may not even care about then he's probably full of women so he's good value, and if he's preselected and so he has lots of women that means he's good genes because those other women know what they are into. Have you ever seen a case where a woman cheated a jock with a nerd? me neither, have you seen the other way around? a lot, I wonder why. Probably because women want the best genes.

And of course when they grow up and see the reality of what it is, that the women aren't the angels that his mother trademarked, they get angry and bitter. Of course you would get angry and bitter at women if you believed your whole life that "women are angels" because your mom told you so, and then you end up figuring out that it wasn't the case. It turns out they aren't angels. It turns out society and your mom was wrong. And you get rejected for just being nice and so on. Maybe even an "eww". That's because his mom never had to interact with women from a male's perspective, she only had to interact with women from a woman's perspective, so of course she's going to think that women are angels and all that delusion that comes with it, since other women are angels with her, aren't they? nevermind that she herself was a single mom who went for alpha-chads to sleep with them and leave at the detriment of men like her son, who she is raising in the same education of the men she rejected, and then complains about the results. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I remember Jack Davison's mom saying that all men are crap and all women are angels, which leads to Jack Davison's distorted view, that later results in bitterness when he realises the truth, as well as her raising Jack Davison to be a weak a*s beta male in the image that she wants men to be, even if she rejected them, because she's actually afraid that Jack Davison becomes one of these alpha-chads that slept with her and left, she's afraid that her son Jack Davison becomes one of these insecure men that sleep with women and leave, so then she raises him exactly with the education that she wants to have, she raises him to become a weak a*s beta male, and then she becomes a shooter, at the detriment of her lessons that "women are angels" despite him not experiencing that but the opposite, like, wow? where did that came from? isn't it obvious? it kind of is. Instead of trying to become a more masculine man, to get in shape, to get fit, to get confident, to know how to talk to girls and maintain eye contact, to sexualize women. Because yes, women say they hate to be sexualized but sleep with men who sexualize them, like how does this work out? with their actions & beliefs being miles apart. Instead of being hot and approach with confidence and all of that, to trademark "good genes", he lived his whole life in a lie and now has this realisation that "women aren't angels, they want the best genes, and everything mom told me was wrong", so of course he got bitter and resentful due to bad education. And that's how single mother children end up commiting more crimes, due to bad education.

Heck, just look at the female-sensation from a few years ago:

Women were absolutely insane with this move. There were theaters with all seats taken by women months after it was released. It was such a phenomena with women. Why? because it was a woman's dream come true. It was a woman scoring a chad.

You have all this feminism today that celebrates single motherhood. It's not good, it's terrible. Both for the woman and for the child. But especially for the child, because he lacks that masculine fatherly figure in this life to learn how to be a man.

And because of feminism "we can do it", these women think they can do it all. Raising their children more fked up than ever.

The most charitable definition that I can give feminism is it's not an equality movement, it's a woman's advocacy movement. There's nothing wrong with woman's advocacy but to try to paint feminism as seeking true equality... You see feminists don't fight for equality if said equality does not come at the benefit of women. It there's no benefit to be reaped by a form of equality, feminists will not fight for it. Therefore it is not a true equality movement.

In USA these single moms women are celebrated as "the parent that stayed" wtf. They are just the woman that wanted an alpha-chad, that alpha-chad just slept with them and left, and they knew for a fact that that alpha-chad will sleep with them and leave because it happened before and they just hoped it wouldn't happen again, and now they are celebrated as a hero for their own short-sightedness. Yes, there are exceptions, like women whose husband died and so on, they have my sympathy, but not these women, quite frankly, those women deserve their single-motherhood in the same way that if I walk with an 100$ on my forehead and then get robbed I don't deserve any sympathy, I was just an idiot not a victim, and I got what's coming to me. A single mom like that is street material not wife material.

Women are not as shallow as men. Women are in fact more shallow than men. And they have a good reason to be so: on women it depends that the strong genes are passed on.

Women are responsable with making the human race strong. That's why they do everything that they do.

If you truly knew as a fact that this is how women are, you know why women have this tendency, is deeply important to make the human race strong. Women want to be impragnated by the alpha male who has the best genes, and then know for a fact that guy will not stick around, because he has the best genes, he has that testosterone level to go out there and be with as many women as possible, but the guy who will stick around to protect her is that beta male and convinently that beta male doesn't even have good genetics anyway so let's just not sleep with him when I can sleep with the good guy. When women are ovulating, they find more masculine faces desireable, it's deeply important to make the human race strong.

Women decide what man's genes are passed on.

Do you really think that just out of pity, a woman should pass a weak man's genes. Do you really think, that just out of pity, a woman should pass a weak man's genes on?

Just out of pity, the women should decided to make the human race weaker, because some beta male wants to play video games and stay up in home all day and never take care of his body and so on? Maybe he has potential, but because of his bad traits he looks like he doesn't. Maybe he has good genes, but his behavior and potential say more about him than some calculations could. It's way easier to judge a man's good genes by its cover rather than by I don't know, something else. So maybe he has potential, but because of his bad traits and bad behaviors he doesn't look like he has potential to impregnate a woman.

You want more evidence? here are a few particular cases:

The best example I have seen was a guy who made a fake Tinder with Chad pictures. His bio said he has been in prison. Women opened the conversation (of course, they will say hi first if you are Chad) and then he asked them if they read his bio. They said yes and asked why he has been in prison. He said he had sex with a minor. They would reply with "oh damn that is bad but have you changed now"? I get that Tinder is more looks-focused than real life, but this is just fked up. Women (and not one, a lot, were willing to ignore that part, because he was good looking).

This guy more specifically:


Imagine that, if you are this good looking, this Chad, they are willing to ignore the fact that you had sex with a minor for those genes.

If women wouldn't have sex with those guys, with the a**les, where do you think the a**les would perpetuate? don't you think the a**les genes would just die out? but the truth is, women don't care that much if you're an a**le, all they care about is if you have good genes to pass on to your children.

I've seen this guy in real life who is 6'5 and above average handsome. He is also openly alt-right, narcissistic, controlling, a bully, unambitious, I could go on. He had all the traits of an ‘alpha male’ behaviour that makes him attractive. He has always had loads of success with attractive women. Looks can't get you everywhere, but they will get you in a lot of places. Women didn't care that much about the openly alt-right, narcissistic, controlling, a bully, unambitious, part because he was hot. And in fact, confident may have even been a benefit. Women just wanted those good genes, that's what it was all about.

It's like a Dutch stand-up comedian said: Officially they are leftist vegan 'goody goody' girls, but at the same time, when they are horny esp, they want misogynistic bad men. This exact woman was of the opinion in the future there would be only nerdy men. The comedian was like: all this violence its disgusting... fuck me! Like "yeah, you're a bad boy, and I generally don't like that, but I just make an exception for you, your violence disgusts me, want to screw around?".

She threw all her "principles" out the window the moment she found a man she was sexually interested in.

A woman once told me that a man's height would not matter to her at all. However, when she praised her daughter's new boyfriend, the first thing that came spontaneously out of her mouth with much enthusiasm without her realising was "tall".

So height doesn't matter, until it does, again, she wants the best genes possible. But there are other ways to get "the best genes possible" beside being just tall.

Nerdy guys are just friendship material. Not dating material. For women, there's a whole different tree in what constitues a good friendship material - being trusty, loving, friendly, all the qualities she says she wants in a boyfriend - and a good dating material - the best genes possible.

So for women the friendship tree and the dating tree are very different and requires so many different qualities. That's why so many people are in the friendzone. And there are so many people obsessed with just 1 woman who jumps with the next Chad hoping for the best and then comes back to him when that Chad eventually leaves. But he's still not good enough, because well, he's not a Chad in terms of qualities, he's on the friendship tree not on the dating tree. She doesn't want a guy like him, he wants a guy who would stay and be loyal and maybe help her like him. Other than that, he needs to have Chad qualities that he doesn't have. So instead of working to become a Chad, that poor soul takes her word for it and wonders why she doesn't want him if "she wants a guy just like him". Because she means just like him in a very specific sense, all the ways he is not a Chad but she would like a Chad to be.

And the "nice guy" / "I want a guy just like you, but not you" problem has a simple explaination/solution: she wants someone like you who would stay and be there for her. But she hopes that that someone like you would be a Chad not you. You are someone she can secure, she hopes she can secure the a Chad same way she can secure you. That's why she wants a Chad like you, that's what she means by it.

You are perfect for the friendship but terrible for the relationship because poor genes.

Had a friend, when he was younger a lot of girls would say they wished more guys would be like him. He was attracted to them but they weren't attracted to him. It confused him to no end. I'm finally understanding. They wished they could transplant his personality onto another guy they found attractive. Personality does not go as far as looks or height. Plus all that confidence and multitude of girls attitude. They don't want personality for the sake of personality. They want the upper 20% to have his personality of loyality and staying so that she can secure him. The best thing you can do for yourself in finding someone to date is become more fit physically fit and work on presentation.

You could make the case that "personality was still the issue, he was not assertive enough". If personality was his issue, why would a lot of girls be friends with him? well, because he's great on the friendship tree but not that great on the dating tree. You aren't friends with people whose personality you dislike, but at the same time, you aren't friends with people who you want to get laid with, especially when you have the option to actually get laid with that person, like she has.

By contrast, when I was younger I was shy and introverted so I didn't have girl friends, but I had women who would hit on me, women wouldn't want me as a friend, they would want me romantically. Why? I was very good looking, couldn't say much for confidence but I guess you can do without although the whole package good looks & confidence & preselection & and no anxious or envy around women because you already got plenty is better, I guess I was good enough that I could do. However, I was good enough for dating material, but not good enough for friendship material, isn't that weird? I wasn't a good enough material for girls to be friends with me, but I was a good enough material for girls to sleep with me, what does that say about me? and what does that say about the women in question? That they want a Chad, that they want you to become a Chad, confident and good looking and all of that, all that pack, then she will consider you a dating interest.

"But I like personality more", once you have weeded out 80% of guys based on looks and confidence, personality becomes a big factor.

I wonder how much of women's self-report is due to a lack of self-awareness rather than a lie. My experience of women, from intimate conversations with them, is that they don't really know what makes their own sexuality work. And there are studies to support this, that, basically, women don't know what they want.

There was a study where men and women's blood flow was tested for what excites them, what kind of man/woman they would like, etc. First they would do a self-report on what they say that excites them and are looking for in a partner, both in bed and in life.

And when men were presented with that, the result was pretty much what you would expect, what they said excites them either in bed or in a romantic partner was true. But when women were presented with that, there was such a huge difference between what they said that excites them and are looking for in a partner in bed and in life, and what actually excites them both in bed and in life about a partner based on the blood flow test, that one had almost nothing to do with the other.

Basically, what women said they want, was miles away from what they actually want. And, this wasn't a lie. They didn't say it just to be polite. They genuinely believed what they said.

Women are actually wired to not know what turns them on both in terms of pornography and in real life. This is a evolutionary/survival mechanism for women, because it allows them to get as many resources as possible. This is part of how human courtship works, is that women present themselves as intermittently interested in men, because they don't really know what attracts them so they go for it in all directions. And so they create this random intermittent reinforcement schedule to incentivize male resource provision. In other words, men would do anything for her because she herself doesn't know what she wants. Is simps, women are biologically programmed to recruit simps. Not out of their own mean desire, this is how they are wired. In the same way a baby cries at night for apparently no reason. Why does a baby cry at night? so that you'd be too busy with him to make brothers. The baby of course doesn't think about that, but the babies who did that they had less brothers and more resources were invested in them, and so, they survived, so they passed on those genes of crying at night without even thinking about it, evolution works, evolution doesn't care or matters how it works, it just works.

As an "average guy", women are not reliably interested in sex. I think that not being aware when they are turned on is part of female psychology, simply because it incentivizes this random intermittent reinforcement schedule in their relationships with their suitors.

So you want more sex? get hotter. Get better looking, get better genes. As well as confidence and all that. And then she will want to sleep with you more.

If she is not chasing you, she is not interested. Trust me, when a woman is interested in you, she chases you, it happened to me on numerous occasions.

Don't trust people's words. Look at their actions. Don't listen to what they tell you, because we've already established that women don't know what they want and have a friendship tree as well as a dating tree. Had a relative who worked in a high status Hotel as a waiter and Barista and I can assure you the women tip 99% of the times an attractive male waiter and try to get him to stay on the table and talk to them as long as they can.

And in fact, there's evidence for this: A study found out that men tip female attractive waitresses 0.55$ higher on average. But women tip male attractive waiters 1.07$ higher on average. That's women tipping twice as much than their male counterparts in women for the males they find attractive. And it's just as stupid in both cases, because just because you tip that woman/man extra, it doesn't mean that woman/man is going to sleep with you. But it goes to show that women are way more willing to invest in men/Chads they find attractive, than men are in their female counterparts. It goes to show that women are more desperate for a Chad, than male simps are desperate for a streamer girl. Women tipped double the men they found attractive, so investment in them, than men tipping women they find attractive. Basically, women simping way more over hot men than men simping over hot women.

Women simp over men way harder than men simp over women. It's just that the women simp over the Chads. While the men simp over the women who simp over Chads.

As I said, women are more superficial than men, but they don't realise this because this is how they are wired.

Something like this also happen in elementary, female teacher's favorite kid was a cute one, while always ugly one was one she can't stand. Just go through younger days and you will notice this.

And the cheese on the cake: "I'm not like other women", but when they are like other women they find it more accurate.

Basically, in a study, men & women were asked 2 questions and then looked at the factors to see how accurate those 2 questions were:
1) What they find important in a partner?
2) What they think other men/women find important in a partner?
3) And then the things that actually led to their current relationships were analized, to compare their stated importance with what actually happened.

The 6 traits were:
- Looks
- Common interests
- Ambition
- Fun
- Intelligent
- Honest.

Self-stated for men: (1) looks, (2) intelligence, (3) fun, (4) honest.
Self-stated for men in other men (what men think other men go for): (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) intelligence, (4) honest.

Basically, the only difference was men saying "I want an intelligent woman, but other men want a fun woman", that's it, the rest fit. Even honesty was on the same level.

Actual results for men: (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) common interests, (4) ambitious.

It's interesting that the difference for men between self-stated and reality was that the women were supposed to be even more fun than they said in other men. The women who were extra fun were extra great. Basically fun & common interests & ambitious dominated, where as men said they wanted for themselves someone intelligent, except other men want more fun, except the reality is that men want more more fun even more than they say other men want more fun.

And now for the women:

Self-stated for women: (1) intelligence, (2) honest, (3) fun, (4) looks. [ok, so high IQ, loyal, fun to be around, and good looking, in that order, ideal man for women]
Self-stated for women in other women (what women think other women go for): (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) intelligence, (4) ambitious. (wow, this is a huge difference isn't it? it's like the list was reversed, looks went from 4 to 1, fun went from 3 to 2, intelligence went from 1 to 3, and honest is not even there anymore instead it's just ambitious, this is what women mean by "I'm not like other women", that's a whole different set of criteria and priorities).

Basically, the difference between what the women say they themselves want, and what the women say other women want, is night and day.

Actual results for women: (1) looks, (2) common interest, (3) fun, (4) intelligence.

The difference in women between self-stated and reality was even more night & day than between themselves and what they said other women want.

They said they want intelligence and other women want looks, they were right on looks. This is the average of all women who took part in the study, so all women on average said that "I'm not like other girls, I prefer intelligence, where as other women prefer looks", yeah, they prefer looks too, otherwise the actual wouldn't have ended up that way.

The 2nd is interesting, they said "I want an honest guy but other women want a fun guy, turns out neither of them wants a honest guy". Again, just like the first case, what they actually want was way different from what they self-stated they want, honesty was not even in the first 4.

But they were very close here on the 3rd with fun, since on the 2nd place is common interests and on the 3rd place fun. So the fun has merit but in a weird reversed way with common interests being above that, in fact, in a weird irony, they were more accurate with the "fun" in terms of themselves rather than other women with the fun being rightfully on the 3rd place, where as them in relation to other women said that it's on the 2nd place for other women. Here, they were more accurate with themselves rather than with other women with fun being on the 3rd place.

And finally, intelligence on the 4th place, after looks, after common interest, after fun. So nerdy? sorry nerdy guy, not your time. The interesting things are honest, which said were important for themselves, 2nd place right after intelligence, was not even in the top 4 either for other women or themselves. Ambition, meh, it was 4th place for other women but last places for both themselves and reality. And common interests, having things in common, was surprisingly more important than both they considered in themselves, and they considered in other women, right after looks of course, and on the 3rd place after that being fun. Confidence wasn't part of the study but it would be interesting if it were, also looks split into good face and good ripped body would have also been interesting. But it probably goes to show that these things are important as well.

So, just to put this in perspective:
Self-stated for men: (1) looks, (2) intelligence, (3) fun, (4) honest.
Self-stated for women: (1) intelligence, (2) honest, (3) fun, (4) looks.
Self-stated for men in other men: (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) intelligence, (4) honest.
Self-stated for women in other women: (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) intelligence, (4) ambitious.
Actual results for men: (1) looks, (2) fun, (3) common interests, (4) ambitious.
Actual results for women: (1) looks, (2) common interest, (3) fun, (4) intelligence.

 

And if none of these managed to convince you. Let's take the words of this guy from his book:


In his book, he says: "Do women prefer the reckless or the kind?" (basically, another parenthesis for the beta or the alpha)

From Hollywood films to car adverts, heroism is a celebrated male quality, and new reserach confirms that heroism is for women one of the most attractive features in a man, which explains a host of previously puzzling aspects of sexual attraction - for example, women who so often fall in love with 'loveable rogues', and why men like to show off recklessly when there is an audience of women. The persistance of heroism is a puzzle to evolutionary psychologists as often the heroic are the first to be killed in battle and in geneuinely dangerous situations. (...) The brave, who are likely to take repeated risks, are expected to be more rare in terms of lifetime survival chances, the more risks taken, the greater the risk of eventual death. There is a debate as to the difference between bravery and foolhardiness, yet clearly we need some people willing to take risks as many lives are saved by risk takes. Risk taking occurs even in a safe, comfortable, pampered society. (...) it could be that young men are so risk prone because this is a reliable way of attracting women. After all, this is the period of their lives when both sexes interest in each other is the greatest.

For their ground-breaking study, entited "Who Dares Wins", Kelly and Dunbar conducted experiments on attraction and found that women do prefer risk-prone brave males over non-risk taking avoidant males. And also that men are aware of this preference. Bravery in a male was shown to be the biggest indicator of influencing female choice for short-term partners, long-term partners as well as male friends. (simply put, women like men who are brave). On the other hand, kindness played a lesser role in their choices. When bravery is pitted against kindness, the surprising result is that women put much more weight in bravery than kindness. Kindness was deemed to be an important factor in friendships, but not important in short-term or long-term relationships.

One explaination for this is that women in our ancestral and more dangerous past would have needed to choose mates who were able to protect them from both animal and human predators. So bravery was a much more important trait in this aspect. Women would have logically favourited skilled and brave men. Women could still be programmed in their genes to favor a brave mate over a more timid 'stay-at-home' mate. In the enviroments in which we evolved, the provision of meat acuqired by hunting was a male provision, and hunting often required some degree of personal skill, so choosing a brave mate as a hunter would have ensured a woman and her children would be more likely to be fed and survive.

Kelly and Dunbar were also interested in comparing Kindness & Bravery with Selfishness & Bravery. After all, one could argue that there is a difference between a risk-taking selfish man and a risk-taking kind man. Someone who puts his life at risk to rescue another person versus someone who puts his life at risk to drive with fast speed because he enjoys it. (...) the research found out that out of all possible choices, the men who were both brave and not kind, did much better than everyone in terms of approval rating by women in terms of short-term relationships. When bravery is pitted against kindness, bravery across all types of relationships, short or long term, carries much more weight for women.

Kelly and Dunbar also asked a group of men to predict which type of men the women would be attracted to, and the men were correct in predicting that women would be attracted by the brave but not kind types. (...) There are, of course, disadvatanges to selecting a mate who habbitually takes risks. Brave, risk-prone men are likely to have a higher morality rate than risk-avoidant men. So a woman picking a high-risk man may find herself alone with no support. This risk is reflected in Kelly and Dunbar's research, which found out that for long-term relationships bravery had slightly less impact than it did for short-term relationships in terms of female attraction to brave men. However, it was still higher than kindness in both cases. Selfishness was also more valued in long-term relationships than short-term relationships.

But whatever the scenario: short or long term, brave men were still prefered to the non-brave. So it appears that women benefit to outweight the potential cost of death. This begins to explain the attraction women feel for 'loveable rogues' even if he is obviously unfaithful. He is risk taking. It could be seen than that a risk taker has a better bet in a dangerous world. You might as well hang on the risk taker if you know that that leaving him for another risk-taker would result in the same thing, but where long-term prognosis for fidelity (due to shared history) is not the same thing.

Bravery was the most attractive when the man was professionaly brave: firefighter, SWAT; as opposed to someone who was brave only fitfully: a volunteer for a lifeboat charity. Women prefer men who are consistently brave, rather than occasionally brave. This is linked to what may be called dependability and professionalism. Casual bravery, could be perhaps reasoned, it could end in disasted. But professional bravery only happened because it always gave good results. Risk-taking only attracts women when it's on display in some way. Given that men are aware that women find risk taking attractive, it could be that much male bravado now becomes understandable in terms of showing off. Rather than a make "peacock" display its colorful feathers to attract a mate.

Sigmund Freud famously asked in a fit of frustration "what do women want?", Kelly and Dumbar's answer appears to be that women want it all: a man who is sensitive and kind in general but who also is also macho in energies. Or macho in emergencies. This often presents a conflict for women as they understand that in the long term they want a kind man, since kindess and sharing are extremly useful in a relationship, but they also realise that this kind man is unlikely to raise to the top of the social ladder in a competitive world.

Women place much greater store on status and wealth in what they find attractive in men, than men do in women. So it seems that the ability to provide resources is vital for women. This also explains why ambition and industriousness are found by psychological researchers to be some of the most attractive male personality features for women. The world we live in today is much safer than the world in which humans evolved, so physical bravery does not seem like an obvious feature today. Kelly & Dunbar argue that there hasn't been enough time for the female psyche to adapt, so women continue to be influenced by their stone age genes. Which are still driving them to favor the physically strong risk taker man. Now that the world is again perceived as a dangerous place, bravery seems to remain a desired characteristic.

Advice for Women from "Who Dares Win" reserach:

1. Although risk-taking may appear to be more attractive, because a man needs to take risks to succed in life, ask yourself if his risk taking is reckless or calculated? if he is basically just reckless, can you deal with the fallout when he takes a risk too far?

2. If you find yourself bored in a relationship with an avoidant man, maybe you should encourage your partner to take more risks. He may in fact be playing it safe for you, not because this is his natural tendency.

3. Remember that someone who becomes used to succesfully taking risks in their job might come to believe they can take risks anywhere else and win. Including in an affair. If your partner is more prone to taking risks you should be more vigilant about his fidelity.

Advice for Men from "Who Dares Win" resreach:

1. Kindness in men is valued by women, but risk taking and bravery are valued even more and found attractive. You shouldn't get rid of your altruism, but don't rely in it to attract women. (basically saying "I'm a nice guy" doesn't work)

2. Dates that involved display of bravery, like a roller-coaster or even a horror film, are more likely to impress women, but only if you manage to stay calm yourself during those moments. And not turn to her because you are afraid. And yes, you should go and check out that noise in the middle of the night.

3. It would now seem that the racy car is the part o the armoury that you need to attract women, because it suggests a tendency to take risks. Think about what your lifestyle says about your bravery. Perhaps is time to throw away the cardigans and give that SAS uniform a try instead.

End of the paragraph from the book.

You want to know the female nature? this is the female nature. In fact, status doesn't matter that much, it does matter, but what matters first and foremost are good genes. Of course, status is a translator of good genes but that doesn't mean it's in itself the thing that women want. There are broke guys able to hook women like it's nothing because they have good genes. You have nowhere to go? sure, you can go to the woman's place, because you have good genes and are confident, because you look good, and that's what matters, and you also behave good in the masculine alpha Chad good genes kind of look good. If you're masculine & hot, if you're masculine & good genes, that's good enough for her. This is where "women are kind" and all of that good thing from the blue pill teaches us. Women are very kind and nice, to the top 20% of men they want to sleep with, they are such angels, with these men they want to be with. They will do a lot for them, if only they want to commit. And then it's sad when they don't and they break up. Nevermind the bottom 80% of men, ignore that, you don't have good genes you don't exist, or are in the friendship tree as well and it's your fault for trying to be their friend and "fuckzone" them, except they seem to have no issue with alpha Chads trying to fuckzone them. I'm saying this in the sense of, this is how women are and act accordingly, women are selfish and self-centered in the same way men are selfish and self-centereted, women are humans looking for their own interest, to have the best possible genes, just like men are. It's not like men want to date a 3/10 over a 9/10, so why would women be any different? they aren't. Female nature is just human nature. They aren't above, it's just stupid propaganda that teaches you otherwise. So ignore all of that and look at them as humans, because that's what they are, humans with self-interest and personal desires, just like you. They are no angels, and you are no angel. And it all works out great.

So yeah, you want women? have the best possible genes.
Men aren't saints either, they look for: purity, youth and beauty. But nobody looks at the obese girl when saying "women don't want me". It's young, beautiful and pure women that don't want me that's the problem. Why? because they want the best possible genes, and I many not have that.
When I say "A woman wants the strongest man's genes." I mean confident, good looks, ripped, stuff like that. Competent. These are indicators of good genes. Because she doesn't have a DNA test to see what genes you actually have so she takes it "by the cover". But yeah, women look for the best possible genes and that's it.